CASE LAW DETAILS
Decided by:HIGH COURT OF DELHI, In The case of:Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Pvt. , Ltd. v. CIT , Appeal No. : ITA No. 1433/2008, Decided on: April 1, 2009
8. Having heard the learned counsel Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate for the assessee-company and Ms Prem Lata Bansal for the Revenue we are of the view that the judgment deserves to be sustained. The principle of mutuality as enunciated by the Courts in various cases is applicable to a situation where the income of the mutual concern is the contributions received from its contributors. The expenses incurred by the mutual concerns are incurred from such contributions and hence on the principle that no man can do business with himself, the excess of income over expenditure is not amenable to tax. However, in the present case the authorities below have returned a finding of fact that the fund as contributors such as Pepsi Food Ltd which do not benefit from the APM Activities. Moreover, the principle of mutuality is applicable to those entities whose activities are not tinged with commercial purpose. As a matter of fact in the instant case the parent company i.e., YRIPL which has also contributed to the brand fund is under the agreement under no obligation to do so. The contributions of YRIPL are at its own discretion. Thus, looking at the facts obtaining in the present case, it is quite clear that the principle of mutuality would not be applicable to the instant case. This was the only stand taken by the appellant before the authorities below. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not call for interference. The authorities below have returned pure findings of fact which are not perverse to our minds. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.